Category - World

American Roundabouts

Almost two years ago, I wrote about North-American Roundabouts, and how they were becoming more popular to the extent that websites about them were appearing. Even back then, some American states were whingeing that they were a “European import” and that they increased accidents. The Americans appear to be even worse than the Brits when it comes to grabbing the wrong end of the snake.

Just because people are stupid doesn’t mean that it is wrong to expect them to do things – even new things – that are better and safer for everyone overall. And using roundabouts is a good example, since they’re  are designed to improve traffic flow in congested areas. But how do you prove that they actually work to people – in this case, an entire nation – who are frightened of them?

Whenever I’m doing the first roundabouts lesson with a pupil I always explain how and why roundabouts keep traffic flowing, whereas simple crossroads (light-controlled or otherwise) don’t. I just explain logically – and it’s enough – but given the Americans’ preference for rigid and inflexible rules (that was the Wall Street Journal’s conclusion in that previous article), more proof is obviously needed for them.

There’s a TV show called Mythbusters (if you search this site you’ll find several stories involving it). They go into detail in proving or disproving common beliefs about everyday things – anything from things which happen in action movies to normal things like traffic accidents. According to this recent news story they have put roundabouts to the test under the premise that they are either “a curse or cure for congested intersections” (in the words of the news item I’ve linked to). The story is brand new, so I would imagine it’ll be a little while before we see the show over here.

Apparently, they have compared a “4-stop intersection” (so, more or less equivalent to a light-controlled junction in UK-speak) with a roundabout. The found that the light-controlled junction averaged 385 vehicles over a 15-minute period compared to 460 vehicles for the roundabout over a similar period. Or in other words, the roundabout allowed 20% more traffic through. The news article, in The Detroit News, concludes:

There are a lot of drivers out there who fear and loathe roundabouts, mainly because they don’t understand them…

…Roundabouts eliminate T-bone and front end crashes. Any crash that does occur is minor because speeds inside roundabouts are usually limited to 25 mph and both vehicles are traveling in the same direction.

The story finishes by referring to how many roundabouts there are in certain cities – they count them in the low tens – and advises that more are coming.

So, roundabouts do improve traffic flow. Someone from America should come over and explain that to the idiots responsible for the “improvements” to Nottingham’s Ring Road, and the Tramicide in Clifton. They’re taking roundabouts out and replacing them with… yep, you guessed it. Traffic lights.

Nottingham City Council is committed to making life as hard as possible for the motorist, while simultaneously introducing absolutely anything that the spotty faced interns from the year’s graduate intake thinks might benefit pedestrians. I note from the Aspley Lane work that although the road is down to one lane (with huge tailbacks) this weekend, they’ve done the important stuff already and installed tactile paving for the dozens of crossings that the junction will now include (it had one before), and that’s even before they’ve built the pavements! And it’s all for the school 200 metres down the road, and for the nearby zoo (sorry, I mean the Broxtowe Estate), not for the tens of thousands of motorists who travel along the Ring Road each day on important business.

You can watch the Mythbusters segment here.

Bulgarian Driving Test Fraud

This is a story from Bulgaria, about Bulgaria, before the George Flag wavers get all excited. Apparently, from 2014 all Theory Tests in Bulgaria will have to Tablet computerbe completed using tablets (that’s “tablets” like the one shown on the left for any British ADIs looking in, and not the kind you take for incontinence).

This change is coming about due to the discovery that the existing pen and paper test is prone to corruption, and that the entire staff of the Road Administration Agency in Sofia had been found guilty of manipulating test results. Even to the point of opening sealed envelopes and substituting the correct answer sheets. And 80 private driving schools were also involved in the fraud. No one knows how long it had been going on, or how many people had gained licences based on fraudulent results. Nor does anyone know who made how much out of the fraud.

I guess we’ll never know, but I wonder if Bulgaria is suffering the same wave of whingeing that we had over here when the DSA decide to move away from laminated pictures of a few road signs and start using those new-fangled computers? Or like that when they introduced the Hazard Perception Test?

Car Crashes And Pregnancy

An American story from the newsfeeds has concluded that car crashes are a “leading threat” to pregnant drivers. My understanding is that their next major aim is to report on the fact that water is wet and fire is hot.

Being a mother on the go isn’t easy, or without risks. In fact, motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of trauma to pregnant women. Plus, crashes during those nine months result in higher rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes such as preterm birth, stillbirth, and placental abruption, according to a new study by the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

I love that word “preventative”. Because prevention – at the least in the obvious sense – is absolutely the last thing on their list of recommendations. In fact, the only thing they do seem interested in is stating the bleeding obvious.

The results found that 2.9 percent of pregnant drivers were involved in one or more crashes. After one crash there was an increased rate of adverse outcomes and a second crash saw that rate increase.

You can hear the collective sound of millions of people slapping their foreheads and going “Of course! How could we have been so stupid?” Or not, as the case may be.

It appears that not much is needed to impress the Americans, and concluding that you increase the risk of a problem if you’re pregnant each time you have a crash is obviously one of them. Of course, any sensible person would realise that it is a risk that cannot be eliminated unless you don’t drive in the first place.

Men Are Better Drivers Than Women

This story from the newsfeeds is interesting. A Spanish judge has ruled that a driving school which charges men about 20% less than women for a driving course is not guilty of discrimination.

Apparently, the school argued that men take an average of five lessons less than women to learn to drive, so the cost of the course reflects that difference. Women are charged $1,159, whereas the men pay $907. The judge agreed, and is quoted:

…every single year, men displayed greater dexterity and better open road skills [than women drivers]

It’s an admirable display of logic – but I wouldn’t get too comfy if I were the school in question, especially if Brussels gets wind of it.

Driving Causes Birth Defects?

Sometimes, people don’t do themselves any favours. I just saw this in the news feeds, and I had to check the date to make sure it wasn’t April 1st.

For those who don’t know, there has been a big kerfuffle in Saudi Arabia over a ban on women driving. Unfortunately – for SA, anyway – the women over there have not taken to this edict very well and there are all kinds of protests and deliberate flauntings of the ban taking place. So, in a desperate attempt to try and “win” the argument that would make any 5-year old involved in a schoolyard argument proud, Sheikh Salah al-Luhaydan has come out with the following:

…[driving] could have a reverse physiological impact. Physiological science and functional medicine studied this side [and found] that it automatically affects ovaries and rolls up the pelvis. This is why we find for women who continuously drive cars their children are born with clinical disorders of varying degrees…

What a plonker! And he is allegedly “a psychologist”, which says a hell of a lot about that branch of study if he can come out with nonsense like this. It’s straight out of the Middle Ages.

Why do religious groups do this to themselves? They must really believe what they write – in spite of the whole weight of science and factual information which proves them wrong – otherwise they wouldn’t do it. It’s frightening, and no wonder some of the things happening in the world these days do happen.

Google Glass To Be Banned For Use While Driving In UK

And another one bites the dust. Google has dumped Glass as of 2015.


Anyone who is interested in technology will be aware that Google Glass is a wearable computer that doesn’t make you look like a complete prat (unlike those street headphones which are popular at the moment). It comes close, but not quite. They cost around £1,000 and all the tech reviews are going to great lengths to prove that they aren’t a gimmick.

Google Glass vs Street Headphones

Since they were announced, it has been almost assumed (mainly in the American press) that people would wear them when driving cars – and that this would somehow be perfectly OK. Even the link above glibly talks of the GPS capabilities of the phone they tether to and navigation using Google Maps, without any reference to the fact that 99% of people who need that will be driving. Of course, you have to remember that America is also the place where they still can’t agree in all states that texting while you are driving is dangerous as a result of someone spelling a word wrong in the bill proposing a ban.

But it would appear that the UK has managed to nip that one in the bud even before the glasses are generally available over here (it’s an American story, hence the spelling):

Where the Republicans of West Virginia tread lightly, the Brits may stomp heartily.

The U.K.’s Department for Transport has announced that it is not in favor of tolerating drivers who wear Google’s new glasses.

The Americans (in West Virginia) have tried to get a ban and failed. It is now up for “future” debate – which means it hasn’t a hope in hell of being banned if it isn’t obvious to those people that it should be banned right now. In the UK, though, we’re a little more enlightened and can happily proceed to a ban based on common sense instead of initiating a stupid “debate” on the subject:

A Department of Transport spokesman told the Telegraph: “It is important that drivers give their full attention to the road when they are behind the wheel and do not behave in a way that stops them from observing what is happening on the road.”

He added: “We are aware of the impending rollout of Google Glass and are in discussion with the police to ensure that individuals do not use this technology while driving.”

This is good news – you can read The Telegraph article here. It’s already bad enough the number of people texting whilst driving, wearing headphones in the car (and yes, they DO have to fart about with their iPod when they do this), and fixing their satnav right in the middle of their field of view. The last thing we need is a bunch of wet-nosed new drivers reading and tweeting by voice command with a pair of these wrapped round their heads.

That American article still comes across as slightly mocking of the British stance. It cites users who say it makes them “reach for the phone less” – so would playing the bongos, but that doesn’t mean you should do it when you’re driving. Google doesn’t think wearing them behind the wheel is dangerous (obviously, that would impact sales):

Indeed, at the time of West Virginia’s move, a company spokesman told me: “We actually believe there is tremendous potential (with Glass) to improve safety on our roads and reduce accidents. As always, feedback is welcome.”

This is total bollocks. They are incredibly dangerous and cannot possibly improve safety in any way if they are worn and used while driving. And it comes as another US story tells how a bus driver on his phone drove on to a pavement and killed an 8-month old baby.

Woman In Russia Displays Her De-parking Skills

I found this video posted recently on YouTube. A young woman – who has already demonstrated how not to park by sitting diagonally in a parking bay – proceeds to demonstrate the corresponding opposite procedure of how not to de-park.

I should point out that all the action occurs in the first couple of minutes. Once she’s reversed into that other car nothing else happens. The footage is from a building CCTV system somewhere in Russia.

It’s clear that she hits the wrong pedal, then panics and doesn’t know what to do – making the situation worse. She manages to stop in time, but then panics further and hits the other parked car.

A Couple Of Australian Stories

Two stories came in on the newsfeeds, both from Australia.

In this first one, an 11-year old boy died as he was driving his sister and himself to meet the school bus and they hit a tree! You have to remember the size of Australia in relation to the UK, and when the story says he was driving “on a rural property” (i.e. a farm) you probably have thinking in terms of tens or even hundreds of acres, as opposed to the square metres it would probably be over here. But that doesn’t disguise the fact that 11-year olds and cars don’t mix for all kinds of reasons, farm or not.

And in this second story, a man was arrested whilst driving a car which had no steering wheel. He was using Mole Grips to turn the steering column. The car was being driven dangerously and had two flat tyres. It was unregistered, uninsured, and subject to an existing defect notice. The car had apparently just been involved in a hit-and-run, and the driver was found to be disqualified and he then failed the police drug test. I don’t think there was anything left for him to get wrong.

Ugly Is Best For Teenagers

USA Today is America’s version of The Sun (but without Page 3). This article from it came in via the newsfeeds, and it deals with the type of car parents ought to consider allowing their kids to drive.

The teens often wanted to drive their mother’s far sportier Hyundai Tiburon, but the couple knew that would be a mistake. It was hardly a sports car, but Ulczycki knew the car’s sporty styling would bring out the cowboy in them, even without a high-powered engine.

“Big, slow and ugly.” That’s what parents should keep in mind when considering what car to give or buy a new teen driver, says Adrian Lund, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

The article then confuses the issue enormously by rattling on about “safety features” on newer cars – much the same as our wishy-washy, “don’t-have-an-opinion” journalists do, instead of working with the facts. But it comes back on track at the end:

These days, it’s almost impossible to buy a car that doesn’t have at least 200 horsepower, even a plain old midsize sedan. That makes it hard to set a horsepower limit for a teen’s car. But experts warn to at least stay away from high-performance models that can bring out the worst in drivers.

“Parents have to realize the kind of car you’re driving tends to elicit certain driving behavior,” says Lund. “If it can go faster, it tends to be driven faster.”

Yes! If it can, it will – and if they can, they will! British parents  who allow their kids to drive modded cars should bear this in mind. Because what it looks like and what it sounds like is going to have a lot to do with what it’s driven like.

Spare A Thought For Florida

One section in this humorous story from Florida caught my attention:

Florida’s requirement that we drive anywhere we want to go is also why we have so many elderly drivers on the roads doing 25 in a 45 mph zone with one blinker on, even though they can be a danger to every other motorist or jaywalking pedestrian. It also explains a phenomenon I have sometimes heard referred to as “Sudden Elderly Acceleration Syndrome.” (Incidents of SEAS got so bad last year the Postal Service put out a PSA asking Floridians to please stop ramming into their post offices.)

As of last year, Florida had 455 licensed drivers who were 100 or older. Between the ages of 91 and 100, there are 65,000. Maybe perhaps possibly it couuuuuld be that some of these folks shouldn’t be driving anymore—but if you take away their car keys, they will be stranded as surely as if they’d been dropped on an Alaskan ice floe.

And I thought WE had it bad. Can you imagine that? There are 65,000 people who are 91-years old or more driving around!